Hi guys,
I was very pleased to buy my first Fluke multimeter based on Dave`s reviews and am now swimming around for a scope.
I deal mostly with hi-end audio, no digital work whatsoever, neither I have interest in entering into it. I know a cheaper analog scope would do just fine for what I do but I want a newer digital one.
I looked at the Siglent 1202X-E which appears a new model and very well equiped for its price. I`ve also read comments on here that the CNL/CML ones are very reliable and according to a few youtube reviews, the Siglent does appear to have a good edge over the Rigol.
Question is, which one is a better pick in mid 2017 and have they somewhat cleared the bugs in the FW of both brands?
Thanks a lot, any input much appreciated!
The one thing to recommend the Rigol over the Siglent is channels. Being able to see many signals at once can help with some troubleshooting. Either way I would suggest getting a differential probe so you can probe around circuits with isolation, ad probe tube circuits with less danger.
In that price range and no need for decoding I'd go for the GW Instek 1054B. It has 4 channels, individual position/sensitivy knobs for each channel, snappy controls, lots of features and no bugs/issues. If you do work on tube circuits then a high voltage probe is a good investment as well.
have they somewhat cleared the bugs in the FW of both brands?
The Siglent has only been out for a month so it hasn't had much in the way of firmware fixes (and seems to need some!). Rigol is pretty much fixed now.
hi-end audio, no digital work whatsoever, neither I have interest in entering into it.
If that's really your area of interest then the GW-Instek GDS1054B is probably the device for you. It costs about the same as the others, has a reasonable FFT, 50MHz is enough bandwidth for the job.
Hi and thanks for all your comments.
The GW Instek seems recommended, but -3db at 50Mhz? Many opamps have higher bandwith these days, not sure if this is ok? I did see two teardown reviews of GW Instek devices and they were criticized for some very weird layout decisions. I had some stuff made in Taiwan (LCR meter and multimeter) before i got into more serious products and they were both crap. The LCR meter I repaired twice and it was badly made. I`ve seen Uni-T devices and they`re crap (my opinion of course).
Four channels look a bit too much for audio, I built mostly solid state but have done a dozen of tube amps too. Even so, they`re not my cup of tea so rare to take on one.
Like all lower end gear (even from Keysight and Tektronix) GW Instek equipment is made in China. I think Dave got early engineering prototypes. The GW Instek GDS2204E (very similar to the 1000B but with bigger screen and protocol decoding) I have has one PCB with all the electronics and this is my daily use oscilloscope so it has been on for quite some hours without problems. Also there are differences when it comes to quality between the various manufacturers so it is not justified to say an entire country is bad at making things (except when it comes to Italian and French cars but that is only one company per country anyway
)
For audio 50MHz should be enough. I expect the closed loop bandwidth of most amplifier circuits to be well below 50MHz and it isn't like the oscilloscope filters everything over 50MHz. You'll likely be able to see signals way over 100MHz.
Hi Nico,
You`re from the Netherlands and said this scope is in my price range. Anywhere I looked so far - its more expensive. Is there a NL dealer that can compete, I may order from them?
Hi and thanks for all your comments.
The GW Instek seems recommended, but -3db at 50Mhz? Many opamps have higher bandwith these days, not sure if this is ok?
a) You're not interested in those frequencies, they're completely inaudible*.
b) The signals don't suddenly vanish at 50.01MHz, they're still there and visible, just a bit more attenuated.
c) Real-life bandwidth is more like 76MHz on those things.
(*) In fact it's a good idea to turn on the internal bandwidth limiter of 'scopes when working with audio so you don't get distracted by high frequency noise.
Four channels look a bit too much for audio, I built mostly solid state but have done a dozen of tube amps too. Even so, they`re not my cup of tea so rare to take on one.
Four input connectors equates to two differential channels - very useful for looking at stereo amplifier outputs.
a) You're not interested in those frequencies, they're completely inaudible*.
b) The signals don't suddenly vanish at 50.01MHz, they're still there and visible, just a bit more attenuated.
c) Real-life bandwidth is more like 76MHz on those things.
(*) In fact it's a good idea to turn on the internal bandwidth limiter of 'scopes when working with audio so you don't get distracted by high frequency noise.
Actually that isn't necessarily true. You might find that you have an amp that is clipping and getting hot when there is very little audible output. WTF? Well sometimes this can because you get oscillations far outside of the audible band. So inaudible doesn't mean not affecting the operation of the circuit. This should not influence the decision on a bandwidth of 50 or 100MHz, but these frequencies are certainly not never of interest in audio circuits.
To my mind there is no really alternative to Rigol dso1054z because of its four channels. Every so often I check the market, yet I don't see any comparable scopes that wouldn't cost >$1k. Looks like companies deliberately segment market by putting only two channels in their scopes.
To my mind there is no really alternative to Rigol dso1054z because of its four channels. Every so often I check the market, yet I don't see any comparable scopes that wouldn't cost >$1k. Looks like companies deliberately segment market by putting only two channels in their scopes.
You have to be aware though that you are comparing hacked versus unhacked. The DS1104Z with all options enabled is also around $1k (or more).
GW Instek have a better alternative to the Rigol (for my money) in their GDS 1054B -- but it is rated as 50 MHz bandwidth and isn't 'hackable'. It also doesn't have decoding options like the Rigol. Better accuracy and implementation of tools such as FFT, as well as being much more responsive to controls, count in the GW Instek's favour. If you need four channels, then compare it to the GW Instek (and any four channel Siglent that eventuates).
For hobbyist use, any sub US$400 'scopes from GW Instek, Rigol, or Siglent is worth a look. If you want the best accuracy then Rigol is not the best bet (nor the older Siglent models, if you're looking for second hand gear). If you want decoding options then you have to drop the GW Instek out.
I have decided to get the new Siglent SDS1202X-E as it should offer a better fit for my anticipated use than the GW Instek GDS 1054B. The Rigol DSO1054Z has a horrible UI, is not very responsive, then add on the poor low V/div settings -- not worth it to me.
Would you share some experience once you have your hands on the Siglent? I would appreciate it.
You have to be aware though that you are comparing hacked versus unhacked. The DS1104Z with all options enabled is also around $1k (or more).
It looks good even without hacking. Although, yes, I would do that.
The Rigol DSO1054Z has a horrible UI, is not very responsive, then add on the poor low V/div settings -- not worth it to me.
What do you mean -- "poor low V/div settings"? It's 1mv/div, afaik.
BTW, price in the EU is horribe for the GW Instek scope (~600euro), but that's our problem
What do you mean -- "poor low V/div settings"? It's 1mv/div, afaik.
No, Rigol Z box lowest full resolution V/div is 5mV/div.
Siglent X-E lowest full resolution V/div is 500uV/div
What do you mean -- "poor low V/div settings"? It's 1mv/div, afaik.
No, Rigol Z box lowest full resolution V/div is 5mV/div.
Siglent X-E lowest full resolution V/div is 500uV/div
The Rigol goes down to 1mV/div or 500uV/div, depending on options. Were you looking at one with the divide by 10 setting for probe correction?
What do you mean -- "poor low V/div settings"? It's 1mv/div, afaik.
No, Rigol Z box lowest full resolution V/div is 5mV/div.
Siglent X-E lowest full resolution V/div is 500uV/div
The Rigol goes down to 1mV/div or 500uV/div, depending on options. Were you looking at one with the divide by 10 setting for probe correction?
The key words to understand are highlighted.
Think of old CRO's where there is a x5 or x10 vertical magnify is sometimes used for increased sensitivity.
SDS1kX and 1kX-E have full and unmagnified resolution to 500uV, also at full BW and not BW limited.
This is the point boggis the cat has correctly made.
What do you mean -- "poor low V/div settings"? It's 1mv/div, afaik.
No, Rigol Z box lowest full resolution V/div is 5mV/div.
Siglent X-E lowest full resolution V/div is 500uV/div
The Rigol goes down to 1mV/div or 500uV/div, depending on options. Were you looking at one with the divide by 10 setting for probe correction?
The key words to understand are highlighted.
Think of old CRO's where there is a x5 or x10 vertical magnify is sometimes used for increased sensitivity.
SDS1kX and 1kX-E have full and unmagnified resolution to 500uV, also at full BW and not BW limited.
This is the point boggis the cat has correctly made.
I can't see any mention of bandwidth restrictions at high gain in the Rigol blurb. What is the bandwidth limited to?
I can't see any mention of bandwidth restrictions at high gain in the Rigol blurb. What is the bandwidth limited to?
I don't know about the BW limitation for low V/div settings -- this isn't checked -- however the Rigol yields increasingly coarse vertical steps in the trace below 5 mV/div. A lot of 'scopes offer this behaviour as a 'magnification' (a button on older analogue instruments, or a menu option on more modern equipment) but it appears that Rigol rolls this into their main sequence. There isn't anything wrong with this, provided it still meets the claimed spec, but it is then effectively a hidden limitation.
If you have any critical requirements, make sure that the spec of any instrument you are considering addresses this. If not, then ask before buying.
There is no perfect 'scope, and for under US$400 you'd have to be pretty optimistic to expect to get such.
(If I remember, I will try to check this behaviour when I calibrate 'scopes. Few manufacturers call for such tests in their documentation -- only high-end Keysight models, that I recall, verify this against a spec.)
What do you mean -- "poor low V/div settings"? It's 1mv/div, afaik.
No, Rigol Z box lowest full resolution V/div is 5mV/div.
Siglent X-E lowest full resolution V/div is 500uV/div
The Rigol goes down to 1mV/div or 500uV/div, depending on options. Were you looking at one with the divide by 10 setting for probe correction?
What did you not understand? Word resolution?
Do you really think I fall to total noobs 1x/10x trap... after working 50 years with oscilloscopes etc.
Show me Rigol Z box (or some other Rigol) what have
full resolution 500uV/div (as you told there is option). First they need learn how to do low noise front end. After payment also I can help.
Here is what Rigol Z box do:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-ds1074z-weird-signal-level-problem/msg727870/#msg727870
It is a messy situation in the low mV/div ranges:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/new-rigol-ds1000z-and-mso4000/180/Depending on what you're doing, you may be able to work around the limitations.
This behaviour, along with the messy UI and responsiveness issue, is what made me rule this 'scope out. I was procrastinating about buying the GW Instek GDS 1054B, because it's a bit pricier and has a few limitations (otherwise it is very nice), but decided to roll the dice on the latest low-end Siglent.
Hopefully I will be able to do some comparisons between the low-end 'scopes as they come in for verification.
Like all lower end gear (even from Keysight and Tektronix) GW Instek equipment is made in China. I think Dave got early engineering prototypes. The GW Instek GDS2204E (very similar to the 1000B but with bigger screen and protocol decoding) I have has one PCB with all the electronics and this is my daily use oscilloscope so it has been on for quite some hours without problems. Also there are differences when it comes to quality between the various manufacturers so it is not justified to say an entire country is bad at making things (except when it comes to Italian and French cars but that is only one company per country anyway )
For audio 50MHz should be enough. I expect the closed loop bandwidth of most amplifier circuits to be well below 50MHz and it isn't like the oscilloscope filters everything over 50MHz. You'll likely be able to see signals way over 100MHz.
Italian, yes, garbage cars... but French make some very nice cars. Nothing is worse than an american car... absolute utter garbage, as is the case with most american made product... overpriced and poorly engineered and made!!!
GW Instek is really overpriced in EU, no idea why. Maybe not a big market enough to offer volume discounts. Does anyone know if the scope is 100-240V (the GW Instek 1054b) and do they offer world wide warranty or is regional? Testequipment have it on sale at $360, I might swallow the pill of paying extra VAT and import duties + ridiculous postage to Bulgaria if it comes with waranty.
Just discovered this one
http://www.datatec.de/Keysight-EDUX1002A-Oszilloskop-AC00364-3.htm It has an inbuilt function generator so will save me some money, is it a rebranded (very likely) 3rd party scope and any info on is it good? I saw it has limited memory but perhaps it is upgradable?
You would have to check out the warranty details for the GW Instek. The problem would be posting it back to the US if it did fail. I would have bought through the local agents, even though it costs significantly more. (Low volume sales inevitably leads to higher overheads for commercial operations.)
The Keysight has been reviewed, and seems to be a good quality but fairly basic model. If you are happy to trade off features for solid support (because they'll push lots of these into the educational institutions) then you should check out the posts, and link to Dave's tear-down, here:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-976-keysight-1000-x-series-oscilloscope-teardown/This isn't the "EDU" model, but it is basically the same. Just note what is shaved off the "EDU" version.